Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd v. V.O. Paulose

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **MONDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1945** **CRP NO. 178 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 31.10.2017 IN OPELE NO.136 OF 2010 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD REP BY ITS ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGERUGRAPURAM, AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DT. BY ADV SRI.E.M.MURUGAN** **RESPONDENT/S:** **V.O.PAULOSE S/O. OUSEPH,VETTIKAMALAYIL HOUSE, P.O THEYYAPPARA, KOODATHAI VILLAGE,KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 001** **BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.12.2023, THE COURT ON 18.03.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP No.178 of 2018 -2- ## **ORDER** Dated this the 18[th] day of March, 2024 The revision petitioner, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd ('the Corporation' for short), is aggrieved by the enhanced compensation ordered to be paid to the respondent towards the value of trees cut as also the diminution in land value, consequent upon the drawing of 400 KV electric lines across the respondent’s property by the Corporation. The essential facts are as under; In order to facilitate drawing of 400 KV electric lines for the smooth transmission of power in the Mysore-Kozhikode sector, large number of trees were cut from the respondent’s property. According to the respondent, the drawing of high tension lines had rendered the land underneath and adjacent useless, resulting CRP No.178 of 2018 -3- in diminution of the land value. In spite of the huge loss suffered by the respondent, only Rs.4,28,661/- was paid as compensation towards value of trees cut. Surprisingly, no compensation was granted for diminution in land value. Hence, the original petition was filed by the respondent, seeking enhanced compensation towards the value of trees cut and diminution in land value. Being dissatisfied with the enhanced compensation ordered by the court, the respondent preferred civil revision petition and the same was allowed by this Court and the case remanded back with a direction to consider the matter afresh, after giving opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence. Accordingly, the court below considered the claim for enhanced compensation towards value of trees cut and diminution in land value and passed the impugned order. 2. By the impugned order, the court below directed to pay additional compensation of CRP No.178 of 2018 -4- Rs.4,36,585/- under the following heads; |Compensation<br>towards<br>cutting of trees|Rs.2,09,830.63| |---|---| |Compensation<br>towards<br>nutmeg|Rs. 12,750/-| |Diminution of land<br>value|Rs. 2,14,000/-| |Grand Total|Rs. 4,36,580.63/-| |(rounded off to Rs.4,36,585/-)|| As far as the yield of trees is concerned, the court below found the deduction of 60% towards cultivation expenses of rubber to be excessive and following the decision of this Court in _**Petronet v. Thresiamma [2012 (1) KLT 959]**_ , reduced the deduction to 40%. In the case of nutmeg, the value was fixed at Rs. 145/-, per kg as against Rs.60- per kg fixed in the Detailed Valuation Statement. The court below has granted 50% of the compensation already paid as additional compensation towards coconut, arecanut, cocoa and non-yielding trees, finding the compensation awarded to be inadequate. CRP No.178 of 2018 -5- 3. In support of the claim for diminution of land value, the respondent had produced Ext. A8 document to prove the market value of the petition schedule property. The said document was rejected by the court below finding that the property in Ext.A8 is situated at a distance of 4kms, as reported by the commissioner and was sold for establishing a toddy shop, i.e; for business purpose. Instead, the court below relied on the Advocate Commissioners’ reports to hold that the respondent’s property is an agricultural land situated in close proximity to the PWD road, Panchayat road and Theyyappara Town. Based on the above factors, the land value was fixed at Rs.40,000/- per cent. As far as diminution in land value is concerned, the court below has awarded compensation only at the rate of 20% of the land value, for the 26.75 cents of land affected by the drawing of the electric lines. 4. Heard learned Counsel appearing on CRP No.178 of 2018 -6- either side. 5. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner Corporation contended that the court below grossly erred in granting enhanced compensation towards the value of trees cut, even after finding that the respondent had not produced any evidence to prove that the assessment made by the Special Tahsildar regarding the age, yield etc. are not correct. It is submitted that the land value fixed is also not based on legal evidence, as the court below found the property in Ext.A8 document, produced by the respondent for fixation of the land value, is not similar or similarly situated to that of the petition schedule property. Therefore, the additional compensation awarded is unreasonable and the diminution in land value, far in excess of the percentage fixed by the Government. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent argued that the enhancement is reasonable and has been CRP No.178 of 2018 -7- granted after considering all relevant factors. 6. On careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the compensation was enhanced after taking all relevant factors into consideration. It is clear that the enhancement of compensation towards trees cut was made after considering the evidence in detail and following the decisions of this Court as also the compensation due towards diminution of land value was fixed based on factors like situs of the land, the extent to which the land is adversely affected and consequent diminution in the value of the land. 7. The contention of the Corporation that the Government having fixed 15% as diminution in land value for the properties in that area, the court below could not have fixed a higher percentage is liable to be rejected since, while assessing the damage sustained and fixing the compensation, the court is not bound by the CRP No.178 of 2018 -8- guidelines issued by the Government. The court below having granted only 9% interest, the challenge against the rate of interest is also rejected. Therefore, I find no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order, warranting interference in exercise of the revisional power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If any amount is deposited pursuant to an order of this Court or otherwise, the same shall forthwith be released to the respondent on his filing appropriate application. The entire enhanced compensation shall be paid to the respondent within three months of receipt of a copy of this order. The civil revision petition is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/